CEO/CTO email copy for Ryva

Date: 2026-04-12

Use:

• send as email, not DM
• only use repo-run line if you actually ran it on their public repo
• if no public repo, delete that paragraph
• if no verified founder email, use hello@, founders@, or site contact form

Ranked table

Per lead

1. Guillaume Marquis

• Trigger: Mar 11, “running evals” still “heavy, slow, boring,” teams need tight loops inside IDE/terminal.
• Why pain: Exact invisible-state smell; eval, PR, PM, eng context split across tools.
• Why reply: Active niche CTO, not giant influencer.
• Ryva insight: Make decision/owner/blocker state visible beside work, not reconstructed in standup.
• DM opener: “Your post on eval loops being heavy/slow/boring felt like same root cause we see: state lives everywhere except one place.”
• Sources: post, role, size

2. Alexandre Berkovic

• Trigger: 6d ago, compliance tools cost “headcount while you wait,” “engineering time to maintain it,” “growth you miss because compliance can’t keep up.”
• Why pain: Process tax explicit; patchwork tools + manual work + hidden maintenance.
• Why reply: Founder-CEO, sharp problem framing, not corp voice.
• Ryva insight: Same pattern, different domain; when state buried in tools, org pays in handoffs and delay.
• DM opener: “Your ‘headcount while you wait + eng time to maintain it’ line hit. We’re seeing same hidden tax in product/eng coordination.”
• Sources: post, role, size

3. Chrisjan Wust

• Trigger: 3w ago, “first time I watched customer clear a months-long backlog in a day.”
• Why pain: Backlog-clearing, audit-ready workflows, existing-tool embedding = workflow bottleneck land.
• Why reply: Hands-on CTO, tiny audience, direct operator language.
• Ryva insight: If backlog and approvals become visible, synced state, teams stop burning time on status recovery.
• DM opener: “Saw your ‘months-long backlog in a day’ comment. Curious if same backlog pattern shows up internally around decisions/ownership too.”
• Sources: trigger, role, size

4. Steve Ancheta

• Trigger: Mar 16, “Companies are rushing to hire GTM Engineers” because stack has “six, seven, eight tools, none talking to each other.”
• Why pain: Fragmented systems, weak ownership, coordination drag.
• Why reply: Active founder-CEO, direct operator content, not huge audience.
• Ryva insight: Same fragmentation inside eng stack creates PR drift, stale Jira, Slack blocker loops.
• DM opener: “Your ‘6-8 tools, none talking’ line maps hard to eng teams too. We’re seeing same coordination tax on shipping.”
• Sources: post, role, size

5. Rohan Katyal

• Trigger: Mar 18, agents are blocked because they lack “user behavior, business metrics, team priorities.”
• Why pain: That is invisible project state, plainly stated.
• Why reply: Founder-CEO, active, still small enough for direct DMs.
• Ryva insight: Ryva wedge exactly here; team priorities + ownership + blockers need visible operational memory.
• DM opener: “Your line on agents lacking user behavior, business metrics, team priorities felt dead-on. Same gap makes human standups turn into archaeology.”
• Sources: profile, team updates

6. Josh Lampen

• Trigger: Current Cartage hiring says “No PMs. No middle managers. Engineers own customer outcome.”
• Why pain: Full-context culture sounds great until ownership, blockers, and decisions go implicit.
• Why reply: Builder CTO in small team, likely still close to day-to-day.
• Ryva insight: Small no-PM teams win only if ownership state stays visible without meetings.
• DM opener: “Saw Cartage’s ‘no PMs, no middle managers’ line. That setup moves fast, but only if owner/decision/blocker state stays visible.”
• Sources: role, team, hiring founder

7. Abdul Basharat

• Trigger: Profile activity references pile-of-work problem: “Every team has a pile of work that gets dumped on the newest…” plus Cartage using Wilson across support.
• Why pain: Weak ownership / context transfer problem very likely inside fast-growing ops-heavy team.
• Why reply: Founder close to ops, active on LinkedIn.
• Ryva insight: When “newest person gets dumped on” happens, state system already broken.
• DM opener: “That ‘pile of work dumped on newest person’ line is exactly where coordination debt starts showing up.”
• Sources: profile, team

8. Akshay Chalana

• Trigger: Feb 18 post on AI in functional safety: tool qualification, risk analysis, technical documentation, standards in real engineering practice.
• Why pain: Requirements/tests/docs/owners spread across systems; invisible state kills speed in safety workflows.
• Why reply: Active CTO, highly specific niche.
• Ryva insight: Ryva not compliance tool, but same hidden-state failure: decisions buried across requirements, docs, Slack, PRs.
• DM opener: “Your post on AI tool qualification + risk analysis felt like same pattern we keep seeing: work state scattered across docs, tests, and messages.”
• Sources: trigger, role, size

9. Bastien Beurier

• Trigger: 2mo ago, PRPM came from real need to teach LLMs quirks of 500+ APIs and reuse team knowledge.
• Why pain: Domain knowledge scattered across people/issues/docs; knowledge transfer becoming bottleneck.
• Why reply: Active devtools CTO, small company, understands workflow pain.
• Ryva insight: Ryva can surface operational knowledge, decisions, owners, blockers in one living thread, not tribal memory.
• DM opener: “Your PRPM post felt like same core problem we’re chasing: team knowledge exists, but not in visible operational form.”
• Sources: trigger, role, size

10. Caroline Walerud

• Trigger: 1mo ago, “decisive phase,” focus now on “disciplined engineering, field validation and building a machine platform that can scale.”
• Why pain: Scale-phase discipline + cross-team coordination problem, very real.
• Why reply: Founder-CEO, public but still operator-heavy.
• Ryva insight: Once team enters disciplined-engineering mode, invisible state becomes expensive fast.
• DM opener: “Your ‘decisive phase / disciplined engineering / field validation’ quote is usually exactly when standups start turning into state reconstruction.”
• Sources: trigger, role

11. Magnus Hedlund

• Trigger: 1mo ago, CTO quote: mechanics + power + embedded control + sensor fusion + flight dynamics must work as one coherent platform.
• Why pain: Cross-discipline coordination, prototype loops, real constraints, many handoffs.
• Why reply: Hands-on CTO, technical build, less noisy inbox than CEO.
• Ryva insight: Coherence problem here is not only technical; ownership and blocker visibility matter even more.
• DM opener: “Your ‘coherent platform’ quote stood out. Multi-discipline teams usually lose time not in build, but in hidden dependency state.”
• Sources: trigger, role

12. Raghav Sethi

• Trigger: Milana update welcomes founding engineers shipping key improvements fast; role history points to prior Co-Founder/CTO.
• Why pain: Self-improving product + early engineering team = context/priority drift risk.
• Why reply: Technical cofounder, smaller audience.
• Ryva insight: Early AI-native teams move fastest when product context is visible, not trapped in founder heads.
• DM opener: “Saw Milana’s recent founding-engineer adds. Early teams like this usually hit ‘context in founder heads’ wall before they hit code wall.”
• Sources: team updates, role

13. Boris Bogatin

• Trigger: 2mo ago, tech planning still runs on “gut feel and tribal knowledge,” “drawings on whiteboards,” “spreadsheets.”
• Why pain: This is invisible-state thesis almost verbatim.
• Why reply: Active CEO, architecture niche, pain-led language.
• Ryva insight: Ryva wedge strong here, though company likely above ideal size.
• DM opener: “Your ‘gut feel / tribal knowledge / whiteboards’ line is exactly why project state stays invisible and status meetings stay expensive.”
• Sources: trigger, role, size

14. Dexter Horthy

• Trigger: 1mo podcast/talk push on structured workflows for large codebases: Research → Design → Structure → Implement, no vibes.
• Why pain: Explicit coordination/process framework; team small though under target.
• Why reply: Founder-CEO, active, deeply workflow-native.
• Ryva insight: His audience already feels invisible-state pain; good reply odds if opener grounded.
• DM opener: “Your structured workflow point for complex codebases felt close to our wedge: teams lose time when project state lives in prompts, docs, and Slack instead of one visible thread.”
• Sources: role, trigger, size

15. Francois de Fitte

• Trigger: Softer; recent community mention says Basalt team runs multi-agent workflows with OpenClaw, plus active Feb 2026 AI evals credential/profile activity.
• Why pain: Same AI-feature shipping / PM-eng-expert collaboration problem as Guillaume, but CEO side.
• Why reply: Founder-CEO, active, still reachable.
• Ryva insight: CEO feels coordination debt first when shipping depends on cross-functional AI loops.
• DM opener: “Saw Basalt team’s multi-agent workflow angle. Curious how much team state today is still living in heads, chat, and PRs versus one visible place.”
• Sources: role, size, mention

Best first-wave order

1. Guillaume Marquis
2. Alexandre Berkovic
3. Steve Ancheta
4. Rohan Katyal
5. Chrisjan Wust
6. Akshay Chalana
7. Bastien Beurier
8. Caroline Walerud